Did your teacher provide any guidelines or requirements?

If not, the most basic approach would be to first summarize the book's major points and arguments, and then discuss your thoughts and impressions.

Since it's for history class, you might want to outline any impact or relationship to any relevant events at the time of the writing.

If you're still unsure, the best thing to do would be to ask your teacher what he or she is looking for specifically.

I once had to write a review of a philosophic book, and I picked Michel Foucalt's Thinking of the outside. Man, this book was easier to eat, than to read. The sentences' deciphering entry points were located at least a page back, and I mainly wrote what I thought they mean.
This is what happens when you try to write about an occultism accessible to everyone, (an oxymoron) and think it will help to use a poetic language for that purpose.
It seems I did a good job, but I wouldn't believe anyone besides me in the class could understand that book, they picked some easy historic stuff instead.

So far, this is what I have... anyone care to proof-read? If you think it is straight up shit let me know, maybe make some minor changes will be made? Who knows, I don't think peer-review is cheating. If it is someone tell me and I will kill the blog.

"Society lives under an authoritative force, force being the key to power. The quote "man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains" emphasizes that althought men are born equal, the desire for dominance causes an unequal distribution of power. (Rousseau pg. 2). Before the French Revolution, France's society lived under the oppressive laws regulated by their king. Consequently, the poverty struck and working class members in society became highly oppressed and could not revolt. The higher class aristocratic and religious members benefit from the king's rule. The king's oppressive rule over his country demonstrates that man lives under metaphorical chains of tyranny."

Thats just my first paragraph (all thats due today). I still have the rest of the paper to write, and I already see a few problems in this... but I will fix before I turn in the final one.

Thanks Shaitian.

I was talking to my prof. and he said

"The thesis should be what the author thought about it, The body should be what it says, and the summary should be what you thought about it (in the lit. 3rd person)."

What do you gents make of that? Does my thesis paragraph seem to follow this pattern?